Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: Verdict is in

The most disturbing part of the audio was the reference to Kyle Williams and his concussions. SMH.....I'm starting to think the penalties already handed were not severe enough.

Originally Posted by JMUpurkfool

That audio is sickening. To actually hear him say to try to take out a guys ACL!?

This is the crux of the issue, to me.

I find it interesting that there are still split opinions over whether what the Saints did was acceptable.

I heard Brad Jackson on the radio this weekend ranting about how people don't understand what goes on inside NFL locker rooms and that this stuff is normal operating procedure across the league. He even suggested the audio was of dubious origin because no one has seen the video that the documentarian shot, and the sound is muffled.

I'm not sure what Jackson was even implying with the latter idea. Came across to me as a wild counter punch trying to discredit the evidence.

Not surprisingly, I have found much more articulate insights from Brian Billick. (The guy who famously collared Jackson on the sideline after a boneheaded penalty during the Super Bowl run and told Brad that he could be a pretty good player some day whenever he decided to stop being such an idiot).

When the bounty story first broke, Billick was not exactly outraged. He talked about how bounties are definitely part of the NFL and the mistake that was made was simply talking publicly about stuff that should stay inside locker rooms. Billick's comments a few weeks ago on the Dan Patrick Show were recapped on the show's website,

Billick says there is a defensive mentality to go after players and knock them out of the game. Billick says every team does things like bounties in their locker room. They just should never talk about it publicly. Billick thought that's where the mistake was.
Billick did say, however, players don't want to end the career of anyone. Not at all. Dan asked Billick how he would have dealt with Terrell Suggs' comments about the Ravens going after Hines Ward and Rashard Mendenhall. Billick said he would have sat him down --- as he had done when he was his coach -- and asked him what he was trying to achieve by talking publicly about that kind of stuff. Billick also commented on the Ray Lewis hit that took out Mendnehall. He said it was a clean hit.

I agree with Billick here. I always found it odd that "bounty" became the focal point of the discussion. That term never got to the crux of the problem. The fact that money was involved never particularly bothered me. Getting two grand for a big hit, like the clean shot Jarret Johnson got on Hines Ward this past season, is no different than a college kid getting a sticker on his helmet for a big play. I get that intimidation and big hits are part of the NFL.

What the term "bounty" fails to convey is the idea of purposely injuring a player. This is what is so damning about Williams' comments I just don't understand how guys like Brad Jackson can continue to downplay that aspect of Williams' comments. I refuse to go along with anyone who wants to argue that targeting hits on injured areas of opponents to knock them out of the game is okay.

Billick has now come out with more recent comments where he clearly calls what Williams did wrong, and says that in 40 years of coaching football he has never once heard a coach do what Williams did -- talk about targeting hits on injured areas of specific opponents.

I just don't get how anyone could miss that distinction. It's unfortunate and surprising that Goodell's office did such a poor job of defining the Saints' crime when the whole bounty-gate story broke.

Re: Verdict is in

Originally Posted by Shas

This is the crux of the issue, to me.

I find it interesting that there are still split opinions over whether what the Saints did was acceptable.

I heard Brad Jackson on the radio this weekend ranting about how people don't understand what goes on inside NFL locker rooms and that this stuff is normal operating procedure across the league. He even suggested the audio was of dubious origin because no one has seen the video that the documentarian shot, and the sound is muffled.

I'm not sure what Jackson was even implying with the latter idea. Came across to me as a wild counter punch trying to discredit the evidence.

Not surprisingly, I have found much more articulate insights from Brian Billick. (The guy who famously collared Jackson on the sideline after a boneheaded penalty during the Super Bowl run and told Brad that he could be a pretty good player some day whenever he decided to stop being such an idiot).

When the bounty story first broke, Billick was not exactly outraged. He talked about how bounties are definitely part of the NFL and the mistake that was made was simply talking publicly about stuff that should stay inside locker rooms. Billick's comments a few weeks ago on the Dan Patrick Show were recapped on the show's website,

I agree with Billick here. I always found it odd that "bounty" became the focal point of the discussion. That term never got to the crux of the problem. The fact that money was involved never particularly bothered me. Getting two grand for a big hit, like the clean shot Jarret Johnson got on Hines Ward this past season, is no different than a college kid getting a sticker on his helmet for a big play. I get that intimidation and big hits are part of the NFL.

What the term "bounty" fails to convey is the idea of purposely injuring a player. This is what is so damning about Williams' comments I just don't understand how guys like Brad Jackson can continue to downplay that aspect of Williams' comments. I refuse to go along with anyone who wants to argue that targeting hits on injured areas of opponents to knock them out of the game is okay.

Billick has now come out with more recent comments where he clearly calls what Williams did wrong, and says that in 40 years of coaching football he has never once heard a coach do what Williams did -- talk about targeting hits on injured areas of specific opponents.

I just don't get how anyone could miss that distinction. It's unfortunate and surprising that Goodell's office did such a poor job of defining the Saints' crime when the whole bounty-gate story broke.

I see it differently. The fact that there was compensation outside of contract is what makes it illegal. that's the bounty part. Testing a players injury is part of the game; albeit not to the extent of going after a guys' ACL or head after a concussion. The only thing I found alarming on that audio was when he talked about going after the ACL. That's just crossing the line completely.

If a receiver is coming off a hamstring injury; jam him at the line and test it. If the corner is coming off same injury, stretch the field early. that's part of the game.